Reading more than one book at a time is a whole nother topic. I usually have one fiction and one non-fiction on the go at any time, to suit my mood. Occasionally I expand that, and have found myself with four or five on the go at a time. (That’s usually a sign that I really want to give up on one of them.)

I’m glad I’m not the only to feel guilty about the thought of giving up on a book!

In the past I used to feel guilty -and at the same time annoyed- when the thought of stopping reading a book -that was boring me silly- crossed my mind. It usually finished with me getting a bit frustrated to say the least.

Nowadays if I don’t like the book I just drop it. I don’t feel guilty anymore as I don’t have the luxury of time I used to have when younger. I tend to read 2 books at the same time, so I suppose that give me a break if one of the books gets a bit stall.

I had the same problem when watching a film, though because the time length of a movie, I can be a lot more forgiving.

I’m really pleased I followed the link to this site from Pyroriffic’s blog. One good addition to my own blogroll.

I enjoyed — if that’s the right word — American Psycho, and was surprised to find out it had a lot of negative reactions because it had been over-hyped. Similarly, one of the best cinema-going experiences I’ve ever had was going to see Jacob’s Ladder without knowing anything about it. I hadn’t even seen the poster. I just had a free afternoon, went in and saw the film. That creepy beginning blew me away!

Nice timing – I have just read Magicians! I approached it from a different angle from you in that I hadn’t heard the hype and assumed it would be a tacky piece of cheesy fantasy – but then I was buying it from the bestseller rack in Mexico City airport, just in time for a flight! Given those low expectations, I was pleasantly surprised to see the positive blurbs on the back of the book from people whose books I like (Naomi Novik’s name stood out in particular), and I read it with gusto, practically non-stop.

I can’t however say that it is a fantastic piece of literature or that it gets better in the second half. I think that if it hasn’t grabbed you by now and if you are more aware of its flaws than its good aspects then no, it’s not going to turn into Tolstoy.

Reflecting on it after finishing it, I think that your comment about the shy character is spot on (she does develop further in the book but I’d say that even to the end she’s a character in service to the main protagonist, rather than a character in her own right – you know, she’s there to make sure that the right things happen to or with the protagonist). I disagree about the magic – I think the way that magic works in that book, with lots and lots of precision and hard work (so that it’s more like being a scientist in some experimental area of science) is put across quite well. I suppose the main good aspect of it is that it’s quite a good antidote to the Harry Potter type of thing, where someone who has the right birth or whatever just is immediately astoundingly good at magic in a Mary Sue kind of way.

In fact the mechanics of the magic make me wonder about the Fillory bits. Fillory is very very clearly Narnia, no bones made about it, in a way that would normally put me off for lack of originality. But because a) no bones are made about the reference and b) the writer can at least successfully originate a magical system that works for me as a reader I am more inclined to give him credit for the Fillory bits.

I’ve actually decided to give The Magicians another go. I looked it up on Wikipedia, and found out that the Fillory stuff — the stuff I like — comes to the fore later on. So, I’m going to plug on!